IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAMESH SINHA, N.K. CHANDRAVANSHI, JJ.
Virendra Chourasia S/o. Late Shri Nanku Prasad Chourasia & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Home Department & Ors. - Respondents
WPCR No. 566 of 2021
Decided On : 21-08-2023
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 269 and 188 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 154 and 195(1)(a)(i) - Disaster Management Act, 2005 - Section 3 - Epidemic Disease Act, 1897 – Marriage function - Negligent act likely to spread infection of disease - Held, it is quite vivid that in order to prosecute an accused for offence punishable under Section 188 of IPC, it is imperative to undergo procedure envisaged under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C. i.e. complaint in writing of public servant concerned or some other public servant to whom he is subordinate, otherwise cognizance of offence cannot be taken and if this imperative procedure is not complied with, entire prosecution for offence - Report made by police officer after investigation of non-cognizable offence is only to be treated as complaint and person making complaint is to be treated as complainant and police report or FIR is not a complaint and further, charge-sheet is a report of police officer- Writ petition is allowed.
ORDER :
Ramesh Sinha, J.
1. The petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs in this petition :
10.2 To issue an appropriate writ or order and declare that the FIR dated 04.07.2021 (Annexure P/1) is illegal, bad in law.
10.3 To issue an appropriate writ or order and quash the FIR dated 04.07.2021 (Annexure P/1).
10.4 Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.”
2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioners are that they are resident of Ambikapur, District Surguja and the petitioner No. 1 is the owner of Chourasia Marriage Garden situated at Ring Road, Ambikapur. Petitioner No. 2 is the father of Harsh Sahu and petitioner No. 3 is the father of Vaishali Sahu. The marriage of Harsh Sahu and Vaishali Sahu was solemnized and the marriage function was to be held at Chourasia Marriage Garden, Ambikapur. Looking to the COVID-19 Pandemic situation in State of Chhattisgarh, the Collector-Cum-District Magistrate were authorized under the Epidemic Disease Act, 1897 (for short, the Act of 1897) and also under the provisions of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 (for short, the Act of 2005) to declare any area as containment zone. Pursuant to the aforesaid delegation of power the Respondent No. 2 on 11.04.2021 declared Surguja District as a containment zone. The aforesaid declaration was subsequently extended by various notifications with certain relaxations and obligations. In continuance with the earlier order, on 28.05.2021 Respondent No. 2 issued a notification under the prescriptions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Cr.P.C.), Act of 2005 read with Act of 1897. As per the said notification, certain regulations were prescribed. One of the said regulation was that the marriage functions would be conducted by following COVID-19 protocol and in terms of notification of Government of India dated 29.04.2021, the limit of maximum persons to attend the function was prescribed as 50 and all the persons has to go through the COVID-19 test. For ready reference clause 1.4 of notification / order dated 28.05.21 is quoted as under :
3. On 04.07.2021 one Komal Prasad Sahu, Naib Tahsildar, Ambikapur lodged a report that on 02.07.2021, a marriage was performed in Chourasia Marriage Garden. It is alleged that in the said marriage, in violation of notification dated 28.05.2021, approximately 1000 persons were gathered. It was further alleged that the marriage was performed between the son and daughter of petitioner No.2 and 3 whereas the marriage garden is owned by petitioner No.1. According to the F.1.R. since petitioners had violated the regulations contained in the notification dated 28.05.2021, therefore they made themselves liable for penal action. On the aforesaid information the Respondent No. 3 registered the present F.I.R. for the offences punishable under Section 269 and 188 of I.P.C. and also under Section 3 of the Act of 1897.
4. Mr. Goutam Khetrapal and Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that a bare perusal of definition clause of ‘complaint’ defined under Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C. would show that to qualify the term defined under Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C., there must be a complaint to a Magistrate. The definition further prescribes that the complaint does not include a police report. Law is well settled that no F.I.R. can be registered under Sectio
State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani & others
Lalji Haridas v. The State of Maharashtra and another
Basir-ul-Huq and others v. The State of West Bengal on the complaint of Dhirendra Nath Bera
Govind Mehta v. The State of Bihar
C. Muniappan and others v. State of Tamil Nadu
Babita Lila and another v. Union of India
Sachida Nand Singh v. State of Bihar
State of U.P. v. Mata Bhikh and others
M.S. Ahlawat v. State of Haryana and another
Jeewan Kumar Raut and another v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Ramesh Chandra Mehta v. State of W.B.
Raj Kumar Karwal v. Union of India
Saloni Arora v. State of NCT of Delhi
Jeevanandham and others v. State and another
D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal
Ushaben v. Kishorbhai Chunilal Talpada and others
SupremeToday
Cognizance of an offence under Section 188 IPC requires a written complaint by a public servant; FIRs based solely on police reports are prohibited and rendered void.
In view of aforesaid legal analysis, it is quite vivid that respondent/State is absolutely unjustified in registering first information report for offence punishable under Section 3(1) of Act of 1897....
The court emphasized the need for a simpler procedure in dealing with petty offences and criticized the delay in disposing of cases related to violation of orders under the Disaster Management Act, 2....
The registration of FIR under Section 188 IPC without a written complaint from the concerned public servant is impermissible and renders the proceedings void ab initio.
The absence of a written complaint from a public servant invalidates the cognizance of offences under Section 188 IPC, and police investigations into non-cognizable offences require prior magistrate ....
The mandatory nature of Section 195 Cr.P.C. and the requirement of a complaint in writing by the public servant concerned for initiating proceedings under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory compliance with legal provisions, the requirement for evidence to support charges, and the need for proper service through the Emb....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.